Seigfried v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court . — Hon. Geo. E. Williams, Judge. (1) The delivery of goods to a common carrier for transportation to the purchaser passes title to the latter and is equivalent to delivery to the purchaser, subject only to the right of stoppage in transitu. Seharff v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 428; Bank v. Smith, 107 Mo. App. 188; Cultivator Co. v. Railroad, 64 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court . — Hon. Geo. E. Williams, Judge. (1) The delivery of goods to a common carrier for transportation to the purchaser passes title to the latter and is equivalent to delivery to the purchaser, subject only to the right of stoppage in transitu. Seharff v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 428; Bank v. Smith, 107 Mo. App. 188; Cultivator Co. v. Railroad, 64 Mo. App. 306. (2) “Right of stoppage in transitu arises solely upon the insolvency of the buyer. ’ ’ 4 Elliott on Railroads, p. 2390; Hutchinson on Carriers, sec. 421; Heinz v Transfer Co., 82 Mo. 233; Smith Co. v.…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
(after stating the facts).— The assignments of error may be. summarized to be that there was no evidence showing the insolvency of the consignee and that without insolvency there is no right of stoppage in transit, it being also assigned as error that the court had excluded competent and relevant testimony to show that plaintiffs had no knowledge that the consignee was insolvent when they attempted to stop the shipment, and that there was no evidence tending to show that the defendant received for transportation the goods claimed to be lost. None of these assignments are maintainable.
Counsel…
2Cited by1 opinion
- F. H. Smith Co. v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911